"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself).
I don't think "Wikipedia" and "groupthink" belong in the same sentence. The only common ground you could find on WP is "there is work to do"; and that doesn't count as common ground on wikien.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 21/11/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself).
I don't think "Wikipedia" and "groupthink" belong in the same sentence. The only common ground you could find on WP is "there is work to do"; and that doesn't count as common ground on wikien.
Indeed. There's meta discussion and then there's, um, other stuff.
- d.
On 22/11/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia itself).
I don't think "Wikipedia" and "groupthink" belong in the same sentence. The only common ground you could find on WP is "there is work to do"; and that doesn't count as common ground on wikien.
WIkipedia has groupthink. That doesn't mean it is a common ground, as groupthink can be confined to a small group of powerful individuals and still be more powerful than the others. That is not to say that all things on wikipedia are governed though groupthink dominated processes, but at least some are.
Peter